Maybe. But then you'd need an argument to show that, which I don't see here. — Thorongil

Okay, assuming we're talking about the God of the Bible. God is invisible and God is immaterial. Therefore if he exists he exists incognito. No one can prove that there is or is not a Christian God.

Why not? — Thorongil

Maybe cause it's not obvious?

Are you xenaphobic? — bloodninja

Whoa whoa whoa, your mind went there. Not mine.

Although fancy me this, are you a secularist? And, define xenophobia.

How am I the one that's xenophobic when I just want to see societies advance and reform?

But by whose standards is this wrong? By your contemporary culture's generic norms? — bloodninja

The ever increasing consciousness'. Law itself may very well be eternal meaning that it just is. We're just getting around as a species to identifying what the standard is. Therefore we realize we don't have the right standard through postmodernism.

If there is no satisfactory answer to this question does it disprove God? — MysticMonist

I think it depends on which God-concept we're discussing.

However you want to define it, evil/suffering exists. If someone hits you in the bridge of your nose on purpose then you know suffering/evil exists. To say otherwise is to not have lived or to be stubborn.

In classical theistic responses, such as Aquinas put forward, there is already no thing such "evil". — Pacem

Then Aquinas was wrong. And actually I'd love to know where he wrote/said such a thing.

it must be that Evil will, inevitably, win and Good lose. — TheMadFool

Ultimately or personally?

Likewise the evil we see may be just God's method of teaching us the value of goodness. No? — TheMadFool

Possibly. But that would still make God evil. Right? Would that or would it not justify abuse?

If the LORD of Israel is the one, true God that has chosen Israel, then what about a devout Pure Land Buddhist who prays to Amidah Buddha? — MysticMonist

I don't know. :)

The intention is to pray and worship the real God of reality. — MysticMonist

(Y) That's about right.

If morality determined cultural norms like you say, and given that cultural norms change, does this entail that morality changes? — bloodninja

Maybe humanity is just catching up to morality. As we (society) evolve we ascend into higher forms of morality, whereas in the ancient times certain cultures would enslave others or oppress others we can now see from history that this is wrong and advance. Truly society ( or better yet, humanity) is being "sanctified" in loose terms. Look at human civil rights in the past fifty to sixty years for example.

Also would it entail there being as many different moralities as there are different cultures in the world? — bloodninja

Un-evolved societies are not as moral as technologically advanced societies. With knowledge comes power and responsibility. The power to create new things advances a society, but that society should not be selfish. Instead, it should seek to advance not only itself but the world. That's the responsibility part.

Make sense?

I think there is too. However I'm having a real hard time seeing how this inside something is separate from, or different to, cultural norms... — bloodninja

I don't believe that cultural norms define morality, rather the opposite. Humanity is naturally desirous of virtue even if there a weakness within man.

(Except you wonderful people of course) — MysticMonist

(Y)

Long story short, I was probably going to convert but my wife is Christian so that wasn't going to work out. I started religion hoping. She doesn't care about philosophy though, no one does. — MysticMonist

Sorry to hear.

Yeah, are the Jews the chosen people? Did the Absolute choose to reveal Himself to Abraham and the rest of the world was kept guessing?

God orders lots of murders in the Torah for sure. The plot thickens. I have no idea. I don't know if God commanded those things or people just said He did. I don't take the flood literally but I believe the slaughter of enemy tribes probably happened.


What about this example:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muath_Al-Kasasbeh
Here is a Muslim family man who was burned alive in a cage by Isis who claimed to do so in the name of God. If a group of crazy people where kidnapping and killing people saying you told them to do it and that you approved of it, wouldn't you try to stop it or at least denounce it? Why did God not save this person or reveal to us Isis is wrong? Perhaps He already has revealed that you can't do this with murdering in the name of God in the Torah, Gospels. Quran and about any holy book you read. But it doesn't seem enough. Obviously Isis skips over those passages. Why is the world so full of this suffering? Why is the Truth not clearer? I don't know, I have no answers. — MysticMonist

So if God is the greatest being conceivable he should be powerful enough to not give us a chance to do evil. After all, it is greater to keep someone from doing evil rather than idly sitting. If he is great and omnibenevolent why is there evil?

That is a good answer. — bloodninja

Thanks. :)

If this is true does this imply that ethics is contingent upon the society or world that we are raised in? — bloodninja

I think the theory that morality is determined by culture is almost brain dead in a way because all you have to do is find a culture that says women are inferior and the way that a man proves his love to a woman is through rape. Now this is obviously something I just pulled out of my head, but the point stands. What if there was a culture that okay'd that? Isn't there something inside of us that just says no to that sort of thing?

At the same time society can definitely correct those kinds of things.

Does masculinity vary from individual to individual and why, if so? — Posty McPostface

Yes, I think that psychologically people are different.

As for why, I think it may be because of a combination of upbringing and personality. Nature vs. nurture. The truth is that both contribute to a person's path in life. It's possible something biological could predispose people to certain things, even influencing personality. But nature isn't all to blame, people train children to act a certain way. Parents have their own issues they pass on to their children one way or another, although they manifest in different ways.

Do the over-masculine or machos just need some love and care in their lives from women? — Posty McPostface

I don't think they necessarily need a woman, I think they need ways to relax after long days of toil and work. Any guy with a computer can go to porn when he needs to. Sometimes relationships can be more frustrating than not. Men don't need to be weighted down by more frustration after their already daily frustration. And it kind of bothers me when people think that relationships can solve everything. Relationships are work. Friendships and romantic involvement are not like getting a pet. A man should be able to be happy and care for himself on his own without a woman.

I was noahide for a while. A gentile follower of Judaism. Still has a big place in my heart.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_Laws_of_Noah — MysticMonist

I have seen these before. Genesis chapter 9 is where the rabbis claim they are, right?

I go with my family to an episcopal church. I lost my faith and ended up trying religion after religion. It's all cool now that I'm a Platonist though, it's One Source for all of it. — MysticMonist

I took a quiz online that labeled me a Platonist. Not sure if that's entirely accurate. I also got results to a quiz one time that I was most like Confucius.

God takes sides?! If he does take sides there are only two possibilities. Either he takes the side of the virtuous which means actually practicing virtue and has nothing to do with having right or wrong beliefs, only actions and intentions matter. Or, He takes everyone's side. I think in war, for example, God is on the side of every victim and for every act of selfless bravery, but does not care at for nationalism or ideology or even just war theory. I fought in the Iraq war in the US Army, God was on my side because I was a foolish kid thrust into a warzone trying to do the right thing but he was also on side of the families who houses we bombed. — MysticMonist

What about all the times in the Old Testament when he said to such and such a nation that he would end them? Can God be on your side in the midst of destroying you? I don't know. If he loves the very people he destroys why destroy them? Why not send a prophet like Jonah to those nations?

Since Judaism came up and I espouse Truth in all revelations, is there a difference between Abrahamic Monotheism and other monotheisms (Zoroastrianism or Saviate/Shivaism in Hinduism or maybe a theistic reading of Taoism). Is God always God? Or is one monotheistic God true and the others impostors? Is polytheism just looking at different aspects of One God? — MysticMonist

My guess is you're Reformed Judaism?

you say duty drives the ethical. What drives the duty? — bloodninja

Conscience. The still small voice in all is what reminds us of our social and ethical necessities. Whenever a person gets an intuitive sense that something is wrong their intuition ought to show them the way out of such and such a situation. The problem is not everyone can go on autopilot like that. For some people morality is a conscious decision. Which is just as good as intuition if not better.

Are you a mountain dwarf as in Trollhagen (Grieg) or the Misty Mountains (Tolkien). — Bitter Crank

I was thinking more along the lines of Dungeons & Dragons. :)

The problem of evil isn't really a problem because we can always say God's intentions are beyond our understanding. — TheMadFool

Well, you can say that but if God's intentions are beyond our understanding why does he even attempt to reveal himself through things like Scripture or tradition?

Put another way, if God's intentions are beyond our understanding how can he communicate his intentions to us?

How do you know when God is on your side and when he isn't?

1. Is truth only as valuable to the extent it helps us achieve happiness? — TheMadFool

Yes. Truth is supposed to benefit people in some form or way.

2. If yes, why do we search so hard for the truth, given that some truths are painful? — TheMadFool

So that we can change. It is our duty to change in accordance with knowledge.

Now Spinoza is almost a pantheist. He says existence is all modes of God's being. I'm tempted to agree with him, but I'm still contemplating it. Spinoza was kicked out of his Jewish community. — MysticMonist

So it's, God sustains everything vs. God is in everything?

What do you all think about my existing (body) and experienced (mind) disctiction? — MysticMonist

I'm not sure. If God is merely an experience he isn't in existence. God must be both a reality and an experience if he is anything at all.

I actually think that God may be at least somewhat physical (Sort of pantheistic). This falls in line with the idea that God is both existence and experience. God is both sensed and communed with daily in a variety of ways here.

I'm almost tempted to think that spirituality is experienced but God is himself in existence.

The Rob Bell in me wants to say everything is spiritual.

Well, we can come to a consensus. In fact that's what's happened with omniscience, omnibenevolence and omnipotence. — TheMadFool

Definitely. Have you seen the Youtube video with the Professor from MIT on the problem of evil?

I sense God's presence and love for me and I don't worry about my eternal fate. — MysticMonist

Happy to hear you've found your peace.

Yet. I don't think a world with childhood cancer and genoicide could possibly be the best of all possible world. — MysticMonist

Right.

The world is "perfect" because God exists and He sustains creation with His presence. Existence is perfect. — MysticMonist

I have heard that Jews actually believe in a form of Pantheism/Panentheism? Is this true?

I've been to the mountain top and found that it was pretty much like the flat land.

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum. — Bitter Crank

Hmmm, so describe yourself philosophically.

So, how young are you, and what do you aspire to? — Bitter Crank

Early 20s, I like metaphysics and philosophical method.

Going by idealism, and keeping it consistent, there’s no difference among you and my experiences of you. — jorndoe

It seems to not take into account the person's experience of themselves, which is important to understand reality and what the person is trying to communicate. If everything is understood only within your lens of perception then you probably have it wrong. The reason being that you are measuring what is being said by your experience instead of the other person's experience. While there are objective truths, everything is subjectively internalized and that means that in the social world we have to accommodate. Idealism doesn't do that accurately.

I really like the forum. I have been skeptical that western philosophy has anything useful to tell us about how to live our lives or see the world, but I have found myself more open after discussions here.

Now - you tell us what you think, and we'll disagree with you. — T Clark

(Y)

Perhaps because Universalism denies human freedom? — MysticMonist

I think it does to a certain extent. If eventually all decisions lead to God then God is the orchestrater of all actions. Meaning that man has essentially no choice in his or her salvation.

As a parent I have two sons, how could any of them ever do anything so terrible to have me wish them eternal torment? — MysticMonist

Consider this philosophically. What if, like Cain and Abel, one son killed the other?

If you believe in Christian atonement thru Jesus, which I don't, then did Jesus only die for one list but not others or put conditions on dying only for those meet them? If God is all powerful then how can we as humans oppose His will to save us? — MysticMonist

Right, if human decision is no objective how is there salvation at all?

God also has the right to relinquish his power as well.

So ethics is not defined by the majorities common interests? — XanderTheGrey

Some would say yes, others no. I align more with Immanuel Kant's theory of ethics. He basically says that ethics are driven by duty. You might be more utilitarian, which is Mill's theory.

Is God infinitely merciful and forgiving?

And, is condemnation eternal conscious torment?

Responding to OP as well.

I believe you are correct. I don't understand Anselm's psychology behind his statements.

Just because you can imagine a flavor of ice cream that's better than all others doesn't mean that there isn't a better one out there. What's to say someone hasn't conceived of something better that suits their needs?

'Better' is a subjective term anyways.